Crl. Misc. M-15869-2018 (OM) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. M-15869-2018 (OM)
Date of Decision: 26.09.2018
Sarvesh Bhardwaj and others
…Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another
…Respondents
CORAM:- HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR
Present:- Mr. Naveen Singh Panwar, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. P.P. Chahar, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Kanwar Satbir Singh, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
JAISHREE THAKUR, J. (Oral)
This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No.0177 dated 27.02.2018
registered under Sections 323, 354, 377, 406, 498A and 506 of Indian Penal
Code at Police Station Sonipat City, District Sonipat (Annexure P/1) and all
subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise dated
21.03.2018 (Annexure P/2).
The FIR has been registered on the statement of complainant-
respondent No.2 on the allegations that the accused-petitioners had
harassed and tortured her in her matrimonial home for not bringing enough
dowry and gave beatings to her and also threatened to kill her. The
accused-petitioners also attacked the relatives of complainant-respondent
1 of 3
14-10-2018 07:42:44 :::
Crl. Misc. M-15869-2018 (OM) -2-
No.2 when they came to take her along. Now with the intervention of
respectable persons, the matter has been amicably compromised between the
parties and they have resolved their disputes and differences.
Keeping in view the fact that the parties have entered into a
compromise, they were directed to appear before the trial court/Illaqa
Magistrate for getting their statements recorded in support of the
compromise. In pursuance of the direction, a report dated 04.05.2018 has
been received from Chief Judicial Magistrat at Sonepat fowarded through
District and Sessions Judge, Sonepat, stating that the compromise arrived at
between the parties is without any pressure or coercion from any one and
the same is genuine one.
Learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, on instructions
from the Investigating Officer and learned counsel for the complainant-
respondent No.2 admit the factum of compromise and submit that in case
the parties have indeed settled their dispute, the State would have no
objection to the quashing of the FIR, in view of the law laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record.
In a decision, based on compromise, none of the parties is a
loser. Rather, a compromise not only brings peace and harmony between
the parties to a dispute, but also restores tranquility in the society. After
considering the nature of offences allegedly committed and the fact that
both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, continuance of criminal
prosecution would be an exercise in futility, as the chances of ultimate
2 of 3
14-10-2018 07:42:44 :::
Crl. Misc. M-15869-2018 (OM) -3-
conviction are bleak.
Consequently, keeping in view the fact that the dispute has
been amicably settled and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and
another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, this petition is allowed and FIR No.0177 dated
27.02.2018 registered under Sections 323, 354, 377, 406, 498A and 506 of
Indian Penal Code at Police Station Sonipat City, District Sonipat and all
subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are quashed.
The petition stands disposed of.
September 26, 2018 (JAISHREE THAKUR)
seema JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
14-10-2018 07:42:44 :::